Seen for the first time in February 2013.
"World's Greatest Dad," is one of those movies that were it just a little bit different, it would be one of my all time favorite comedies, but that also it's flaws are so significant, that it's not even a near-great comedy, just a pretty good one.
It starts off incredibly strong. Almost all of the laughs in this movie come from the character of Kyle, the son of the main character played by Robin Williams who is a lonely struggling novelist and who otherwise leads a bummed out existence as a high school poetry teacher. Kyle has charisma and hilarious antisocial tendencies which carry the movie. His every utterance and action stand in opposition to certain conformist ideals about how normal people think and behave. He's an obnoxious teenager who loves little more than extreme porn, but his misanthropy has a startling wit that entertains in its shockingness.
Unfortunately the movie kills him off relatively early on, and the film dies with him. Suddenly there's nothing funny left in the movie, just Robin Williams's character sadly exploiting his son's death in moments of human weakness, and tired satire borrowed from "Heathers." Though the indictment of Robin Williams's girlfriend's shallowness and phoniness is brilliant and cutting. On the other hand, when the "gay jock" confides in Robin Williams's character his private emotions, I'm not sure if we are supposed to be laughing at that, and if we are, why? There's a weakness in the film's inability to treat people like genuine people who actually have real feelings (even if they are instigated by fraudulence), rather than completely contemptible and mock-able phonies. This is especially egregious to me when done to high school kids, butterflies in their youth, who will either grow up into good decent people or who maybe won't. But save the vitriol for adults, in my opinion. Satirizing high school kids is like yelling at a kitten. It's fucking stupid. The kids are all right you know?
And then we get to the ending, and it seems they chose to deliver the only ending they could have imagined for this thing. But I wish they were ballsier and went with something more cynical. That would have made for a far better movie in my opinion. Something unexpected. But what this movie is trying to say and be isn't what I want it to say and be at this point, and I can respect that. I can't hate something for not being something that it's not trying to be. I just wish it were. But I get the sense of liberation. That scene is sold well. I just wish this movie was more into delivering cynical laughs than it was in making cheap tired points about phoniness, shallowness, and idiot-spectacle. Grade B.
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Friday, January 25, 2013
The Wrong Guy
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
"The Wrong Guy" is a very funny, forgotten little gem of a movie. It starts off kind of slow and slowly turns into a hilarious comic masterpiece. It's a very silly movie about a guy who thinks he's wanted by the police for a murder he didn't commit, but thanks to hidden cameras is known to be innocent. The chief investigator on the case steals the show with his lazy indifference to finding the murderer and use of the investigation to feed his appetite expensive meals, women and entertainment.
Dave Foley gives such a great comedic performance, I'm in hindsight surprised he never became a bigger star and that this movie is relatively unknown. It holds up well with it's contemporaries like "There's Something About Mary," and "Happy Gilmore." Though in terms of humor, it's probably more similar to "Magruber" or one of Will Ferrell's stronger sillier efforts. With a touch of the amateur zaniness of Tim and Eric.
Maybe my favorite bit is the car ride with the "no bullet theory" guy, but this thing is packed with subtle, and clever little jokes as well. Like Foley's delivery of the line "Well I guess Agent uh 10 of that elite thing you were talking about has finally met his match." After watching this, I really can't figure out why Dave Foley isn't as big as Ben Stiller or John C. Reilly. Grade A.
"The Wrong Guy" is a very funny, forgotten little gem of a movie. It starts off kind of slow and slowly turns into a hilarious comic masterpiece. It's a very silly movie about a guy who thinks he's wanted by the police for a murder he didn't commit, but thanks to hidden cameras is known to be innocent. The chief investigator on the case steals the show with his lazy indifference to finding the murderer and use of the investigation to feed his appetite expensive meals, women and entertainment.
Dave Foley gives such a great comedic performance, I'm in hindsight surprised he never became a bigger star and that this movie is relatively unknown. It holds up well with it's contemporaries like "There's Something About Mary," and "Happy Gilmore." Though in terms of humor, it's probably more similar to "Magruber" or one of Will Ferrell's stronger sillier efforts. With a touch of the amateur zaniness of Tim and Eric.
Maybe my favorite bit is the car ride with the "no bullet theory" guy, but this thing is packed with subtle, and clever little jokes as well. Like Foley's delivery of the line "Well I guess Agent uh 10 of that elite thing you were talking about has finally met his match." After watching this, I really can't figure out why Dave Foley isn't as big as Ben Stiller or John C. Reilly. Grade A.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The Last Seduction
Seen for the second time in January 2013.
The first time I saw the "The Last Seduction" was many years ago, and I didn't really like it that much. I thought the plot was too convoluted, the twists were dumb, and that overall it kind of tried too hard. I also apparently hallucinated a slightly different ending where the protagonist Mike clears his name by using the letter from "Trish" saying she's moving to Beston. That apparently doesn't happen.
I liked the movie a lot more this time around. It's a rather generic 90's noir, which is kind of a tired genre, but generally better than the similarly steamy noirs of the 80's. Noir ran into a lot of problems in the 80's and 90's. It's not just that the genre became tired, but the expectations of nudity and swearing in these movies pretty much ruins them. Everything seems less clever, less smart than the classics. I like steamy and I like swearing probably more than the next guy. But.. how clever would the patter in "The Big Sleep" have been if there wasn't the need for innuendo? And the appeal of noir is basically in its cleverness. Hanging a couple softcore scenes on a rickety plot of corruption, betrayal, and manipulation is a gross abuse of a venerable genre.
Also the style of the original noirs is pretty much obliterated for the sake of making a modern movie. It's as if the film-makers think the defining aspect of noir involves a manipulative femme fatale and a convoluted murder plot, when so much of what made classic noirs good was their style, their lingo, the sense of gritty sophistication. The world of noir was always a contrived one. That world never actually existed. Directors of modern noirs seem to make the mistake of trying to make a noir set in the real world, often to disasterous results. This is probably why most neo-noirs that actually succeed are either period pieces, or cartoons, or else something like "Brick" which has clearly created a self-contained stylized world that has little to do with the world we now live in. The remakes of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" and the "The Big Sleep" are perfect illustrations of the problems with trying to make a good noir today. Where the originals are both great films if a bit mawkish in the Postman's case, the remakes sacrifice stylishness and cleverness for a steamy realness to a pretty dismal result.
But the "The Last Seduction" more or less works despite the pitfalls of the modern noir. The plot barely holds together and suspension of disbelief requires real effort, but not in a seriously flawed way. Bill Pullman is great playing his character to comedic effect. Linda Fiorentino gives a good performance as an incredibly cold-hearted, incredibly manipulative sexpot. The guy who plays the lug does a good job at being a lug too. He's more believable than I had remembered him being, though the small town lens through which we view him is complete nonsense. You find guys like him all over the city. And you find women like Bridget pretty much nowhere. But I guess the provincial view of small towns this film evinces is supposed to suggest some kind of sophistication. But the people who made it weren't sophisticated enough to do it in a truthful way. Grade B.
The first time I saw the "The Last Seduction" was many years ago, and I didn't really like it that much. I thought the plot was too convoluted, the twists were dumb, and that overall it kind of tried too hard. I also apparently hallucinated a slightly different ending where the protagonist Mike clears his name by using the letter from "Trish" saying she's moving to Beston. That apparently doesn't happen.
I liked the movie a lot more this time around. It's a rather generic 90's noir, which is kind of a tired genre, but generally better than the similarly steamy noirs of the 80's. Noir ran into a lot of problems in the 80's and 90's. It's not just that the genre became tired, but the expectations of nudity and swearing in these movies pretty much ruins them. Everything seems less clever, less smart than the classics. I like steamy and I like swearing probably more than the next guy. But.. how clever would the patter in "The Big Sleep" have been if there wasn't the need for innuendo? And the appeal of noir is basically in its cleverness. Hanging a couple softcore scenes on a rickety plot of corruption, betrayal, and manipulation is a gross abuse of a venerable genre.
Also the style of the original noirs is pretty much obliterated for the sake of making a modern movie. It's as if the film-makers think the defining aspect of noir involves a manipulative femme fatale and a convoluted murder plot, when so much of what made classic noirs good was their style, their lingo, the sense of gritty sophistication. The world of noir was always a contrived one. That world never actually existed. Directors of modern noirs seem to make the mistake of trying to make a noir set in the real world, often to disasterous results. This is probably why most neo-noirs that actually succeed are either period pieces, or cartoons, or else something like "Brick" which has clearly created a self-contained stylized world that has little to do with the world we now live in. The remakes of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" and the "The Big Sleep" are perfect illustrations of the problems with trying to make a good noir today. Where the originals are both great films if a bit mawkish in the Postman's case, the remakes sacrifice stylishness and cleverness for a steamy realness to a pretty dismal result.
But the "The Last Seduction" more or less works despite the pitfalls of the modern noir. The plot barely holds together and suspension of disbelief requires real effort, but not in a seriously flawed way. Bill Pullman is great playing his character to comedic effect. Linda Fiorentino gives a good performance as an incredibly cold-hearted, incredibly manipulative sexpot. The guy who plays the lug does a good job at being a lug too. He's more believable than I had remembered him being, though the small town lens through which we view him is complete nonsense. You find guys like him all over the city. And you find women like Bridget pretty much nowhere. But I guess the provincial view of small towns this film evinces is supposed to suggest some kind of sophistication. But the people who made it weren't sophisticated enough to do it in a truthful way. Grade B.
Monday, January 21, 2013
The Devil's Sword
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
"The Devil's Sword" is some kind of 80's Indonesian supernatural kung-fu revenge film featuring a nympomaniacal crocodile queen, plenty of creative decapitations, some great dubbed trash talk and mythical kitschy monsters straight out of a 10 year old's nightmares. It is pretty great, sexy at times but not salacious, and a whole lot of fun.
The action pretty much never lets up as we watch an honorable warrior help an almost equally skilled female kung-fu fighter rescue her husband from the clutches of the evil crocodile queen, whose lusts, unlike the ocean or the sky, are without limit. To do that, they must first retrieve the devil's sword and defeat the evil warriors who also seek it. I fear understating how great the four way battle between the protagonist and the evil warriors, including a witch is. It is in many ways the highlight of the movie.
It is in some ways like if Kill Bill were a low-budget 80's Indonesian film that also had creatures from a 50's sci-fi movie and great dubbing. A wonderful melange of inspired kitsch. Grade A.
"The Devil's Sword" is some kind of 80's Indonesian supernatural kung-fu revenge film featuring a nympomaniacal crocodile queen, plenty of creative decapitations, some great dubbed trash talk and mythical kitschy monsters straight out of a 10 year old's nightmares. It is pretty great, sexy at times but not salacious, and a whole lot of fun.
The action pretty much never lets up as we watch an honorable warrior help an almost equally skilled female kung-fu fighter rescue her husband from the clutches of the evil crocodile queen, whose lusts, unlike the ocean or the sky, are without limit. To do that, they must first retrieve the devil's sword and defeat the evil warriors who also seek it. I fear understating how great the four way battle between the protagonist and the evil warriors, including a witch is. It is in many ways the highlight of the movie.
It is in some ways like if Kill Bill were a low-budget 80's Indonesian film that also had creatures from a 50's sci-fi movie and great dubbing. A wonderful melange of inspired kitsch. Grade A.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Mystics in Bali
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
I've dabbled in these '80s Indonesian horror movies a bit. Stuck my big toe in so to speak. The waters warm, but it leaves me indifferent. I read some other reviews of "Mystics in Bali," a practice I usually avoid. A lot of people are enthusiastic about the weirdness of "Mystics," and yeah sure it's weird, but I'm it's a weirdness that I'm indifferent to. I can easily imagine a person getting their strange cinema kicks from this movie. But, personally, I don't get mine.
I guess part of it is that on paper, it's a weird movie, but it really didn't seem that weird to me while watching it. It's an above average low-budget horror film and that's all it is, at least as far as I can tell. Yes, it's an Indonesian movie directed at a western audience, which gives it a few novelty points I suppose. And there's a cackling witch and amateur special effects of a disembodied head sucking a baby straight out of a woman.And there are characters who appear out of nowhere and deus ex machinas. Admittedly it sounds good on paper. It's just underwhelming in execution.
And it is undeniably an above average low budget horror. Which is good despite the fact that so much low budget horror is completely unwatchable. I think my issue is that it's good, but nothing special, by low budget horror standards, but that it's also not particularly weird by those same standards. Grade B.
I've dabbled in these '80s Indonesian horror movies a bit. Stuck my big toe in so to speak. The waters warm, but it leaves me indifferent. I read some other reviews of "Mystics in Bali," a practice I usually avoid. A lot of people are enthusiastic about the weirdness of "Mystics," and yeah sure it's weird, but I'm it's a weirdness that I'm indifferent to. I can easily imagine a person getting their strange cinema kicks from this movie. But, personally, I don't get mine.
I guess part of it is that on paper, it's a weird movie, but it really didn't seem that weird to me while watching it. It's an above average low-budget horror film and that's all it is, at least as far as I can tell. Yes, it's an Indonesian movie directed at a western audience, which gives it a few novelty points I suppose. And there's a cackling witch and amateur special effects of a disembodied head sucking a baby straight out of a woman.And there are characters who appear out of nowhere and deus ex machinas. Admittedly it sounds good on paper. It's just underwhelming in execution.
And it is undeniably an above average low budget horror. Which is good despite the fact that so much low budget horror is completely unwatchable. I think my issue is that it's good, but nothing special, by low budget horror standards, but that it's also not particularly weird by those same standards. Grade B.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Seen for the second time in January 2013.
"Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" is a movie that tries too hard. It tries too hard in every conceivable way. It tries too hard to be clever. It tries too hard to be funny. It tries too hard to be cool. And it mostly fails. But I chuckled a few times, and as far as violent and expletive filled suspense thrillers as light entertainment go, this was indeed lightly entertaining.
Some ideas, like the gay private eye, are pretty good if not irritating as often as they are enjoyable. The irritation level on this highly self-conscious movie is fairly high. But it's not a bad movie. It's just very smug and too fond of its own cleverness. It's a very shallow showy cleverness that wields itself like a sledgehammer forcing you to acknowledge how funny it finds itself. It's like meeting some drunk yuppie at a bar faking some foreign accent and saying different variations of the same thing over and over again, winking heavily and nudging you in the ribs each time, until you respond despite the fact that you've been politely trying to ignore him. Maybe it's not clever after all, so much as it's persistent and perversely confident.
Also, to tell the truth, I am not what you would call a fan of Robert Downey Jr. though he's nebbishly good here. I do like Val Kilmer and this is otherwise well cast. But trying to tackle a serious subject like child sexual abuse is sort of a misstep. It comes off more exploitative than serious. I say leave that stuff for the Lifetime movies starring Meredith Baxter Birney of my childhood memories, and leave the light entertainment light. Note to filmmakers, it doesn't make your superficially stylish, sweary, violent fun-times movie "better" if you get "serious" for a moment. It's a cheap trick and it actually makes your movie worse.
And yeah, I guess I watched it for a second time. I realized I had seen it before about 10 minutes into the movie. What can I say, I've spent much of my life drinking heavily and watching movies. So I forgot about this one. In my defense, it's a fairly forgettable movie. Grade B-.
"Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" is a movie that tries too hard. It tries too hard in every conceivable way. It tries too hard to be clever. It tries too hard to be funny. It tries too hard to be cool. And it mostly fails. But I chuckled a few times, and as far as violent and expletive filled suspense thrillers as light entertainment go, this was indeed lightly entertaining.
Some ideas, like the gay private eye, are pretty good if not irritating as often as they are enjoyable. The irritation level on this highly self-conscious movie is fairly high. But it's not a bad movie. It's just very smug and too fond of its own cleverness. It's a very shallow showy cleverness that wields itself like a sledgehammer forcing you to acknowledge how funny it finds itself. It's like meeting some drunk yuppie at a bar faking some foreign accent and saying different variations of the same thing over and over again, winking heavily and nudging you in the ribs each time, until you respond despite the fact that you've been politely trying to ignore him. Maybe it's not clever after all, so much as it's persistent and perversely confident.
Also, to tell the truth, I am not what you would call a fan of Robert Downey Jr. though he's nebbishly good here. I do like Val Kilmer and this is otherwise well cast. But trying to tackle a serious subject like child sexual abuse is sort of a misstep. It comes off more exploitative than serious. I say leave that stuff for the Lifetime movies starring Meredith Baxter Birney of my childhood memories, and leave the light entertainment light. Note to filmmakers, it doesn't make your superficially stylish, sweary, violent fun-times movie "better" if you get "serious" for a moment. It's a cheap trick and it actually makes your movie worse.
And yeah, I guess I watched it for a second time. I realized I had seen it before about 10 minutes into the movie. What can I say, I've spent much of my life drinking heavily and watching movies. So I forgot about this one. In my defense, it's a fairly forgettable movie. Grade B-.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Two thousand Maniacs - Herschell Gordon Lewis
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
"Two Thousand Maniacs" is a cartoonish film about the animus of small town southerners toward northerners and is plainly exploitative in nature. It's entertaining enough, but nothing special really. The plot is a contrivance for the display of creative for its time and gory for its time ways of killing people. Toward the end there's a weird little hick Dennis the Menace character with a southern accent who is annoying as anything but in a weird way is a highlight of the movie. Herschell Gordon Lewis made a mistake in not having the protagonists off that kid. It's a mistake I'm confident that a more modern director wouldn't make. It's not a question of clouding our sympathies for the protagonists, but a question of giving the audience what it wants, which is what a movie like this ought to do. You know, Herschell Gordon Lewis was a pioneer of sorts, but who gives a shit. He's made better movies. This one is just okay. Grade B-.
"Two Thousand Maniacs" is a cartoonish film about the animus of small town southerners toward northerners and is plainly exploitative in nature. It's entertaining enough, but nothing special really. The plot is a contrivance for the display of creative for its time and gory for its time ways of killing people. Toward the end there's a weird little hick Dennis the Menace character with a southern accent who is annoying as anything but in a weird way is a highlight of the movie. Herschell Gordon Lewis made a mistake in not having the protagonists off that kid. It's a mistake I'm confident that a more modern director wouldn't make. It's not a question of clouding our sympathies for the protagonists, but a question of giving the audience what it wants, which is what a movie like this ought to do. You know, Herschell Gordon Lewis was a pioneer of sorts, but who gives a shit. He's made better movies. This one is just okay. Grade B-.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Aaah! Zombies!
Seen for the first time in December 2012.
"Aaah! Zombies!" is almost a good movie. I really like the premise or at least it almost convinces me that this movie was made with a good idea in mind. But it's really uneven in quality. When the pace starts to lag it relies on silliness and a faux campiness to force itself past the plodding dullness. It more or less works though. In the right frame of mind, this is an entertainingly silly movie.
It's also completely forgettable. I've already forgotten how it ends, but for the vague notion that despite some heroic sacrifices there is more or less a happy ending. But I can't even remember if a certain key character survives or not. Don't care either.
I might also like this better if it seemed a little less professionally done. All of the flaws in this movie are in the script, in the sense that not every scene was thought out in a way that makes sense within the larger framework of the picture. This sort of film would work better with the sort of low-fidelity flaws one finds in good indie or schlock cinema.
One final observation I made while watching this film, the word "douchebag" used as an insult is used exclusively by people who are themselves douchebags. This is similar to the word "bama," where a similar principle applies. Other than that, I mostly found the characters in this movie to be more charismatic than not. Grade B-.
"Aaah! Zombies!" is almost a good movie. I really like the premise or at least it almost convinces me that this movie was made with a good idea in mind. But it's really uneven in quality. When the pace starts to lag it relies on silliness and a faux campiness to force itself past the plodding dullness. It more or less works though. In the right frame of mind, this is an entertainingly silly movie.
It's also completely forgettable. I've already forgotten how it ends, but for the vague notion that despite some heroic sacrifices there is more or less a happy ending. But I can't even remember if a certain key character survives or not. Don't care either.
I might also like this better if it seemed a little less professionally done. All of the flaws in this movie are in the script, in the sense that not every scene was thought out in a way that makes sense within the larger framework of the picture. This sort of film would work better with the sort of low-fidelity flaws one finds in good indie or schlock cinema.
One final observation I made while watching this film, the word "douchebag" used as an insult is used exclusively by people who are themselves douchebags. This is similar to the word "bama," where a similar principle applies. Other than that, I mostly found the characters in this movie to be more charismatic than not. Grade B-.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Violent Cop
Seen for the first time in December 2012.
"Violent Cop" moves at a glacial pace, but is nonetheless, very intense. It's like a Japanese Taxi Driver, except about a tough cop who cuts corners and plays a little rough with the criminals. The police officers he is forced to work with are all, to a man, complete jokes and total incompetents. The tough cop finds out one of his colleagues is pushing dope and we mentally prepare ourselves for the violence to come. But the violence builds slowly, and when it comes, it comes with a disturbing bang. Grade B.
"Violent Cop" moves at a glacial pace, but is nonetheless, very intense. It's like a Japanese Taxi Driver, except about a tough cop who cuts corners and plays a little rough with the criminals. The police officers he is forced to work with are all, to a man, complete jokes and total incompetents. The tough cop finds out one of his colleagues is pushing dope and we mentally prepare ourselves for the violence to come. But the violence builds slowly, and when it comes, it comes with a disturbing bang. Grade B.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
The Beyond - Lucio Fulci
Seen for the first time in December 2012.
In 1981, "The Beyond" must have represented a huge advancement in the realm of cinematic gore, or at the very least, an apotheosis; the accomplishment that purveyors of gore had been working toward since the days of Herschell Gordon Lewis in the mid 60's. I'm tempted to say that the gore in "The Beyond" is not gratuitous, but that would be absurd. Of course the gore is gratuitous, but it is also necessary. Gore is the raison d'etre of this film, after all. And a sense of relish and excitement pervades the work. The same sort of excitement that occurs when new ground is being broken.
Beyond the gore, "The Beyond" does everything a horror film is supposed to do. It frightens and startles. It has creepy moments and suspenseful ones. It does not merely depict frightened people being tortured and mutilated creating a backdrop against which we might assume a studied pose. It affects the audience in these traditional horror ways, and the gore complements the film rather than stands in for it, like so many films of the gore-fest and torture porn variety do today.
The gore by today's standards is probably cheap. Certainly filmakers since Fulci with bigger budgets have achieved a higher verisimilitude of human offal. But the gore is as real as it needs to be for the purposes of this film. And its made up for by Fulci's lingering camera which never misses a moment nor cuts away too quickly from any of the violence, producing a movie more unsettling and disturbing than most of today's sadistic magic shows. This movie really is something special. Grade A.
In 1981, "The Beyond" must have represented a huge advancement in the realm of cinematic gore, or at the very least, an apotheosis; the accomplishment that purveyors of gore had been working toward since the days of Herschell Gordon Lewis in the mid 60's. I'm tempted to say that the gore in "The Beyond" is not gratuitous, but that would be absurd. Of course the gore is gratuitous, but it is also necessary. Gore is the raison d'etre of this film, after all. And a sense of relish and excitement pervades the work. The same sort of excitement that occurs when new ground is being broken.
Beyond the gore, "The Beyond" does everything a horror film is supposed to do. It frightens and startles. It has creepy moments and suspenseful ones. It does not merely depict frightened people being tortured and mutilated creating a backdrop against which we might assume a studied pose. It affects the audience in these traditional horror ways, and the gore complements the film rather than stands in for it, like so many films of the gore-fest and torture porn variety do today.
The gore by today's standards is probably cheap. Certainly filmakers since Fulci with bigger budgets have achieved a higher verisimilitude of human offal. But the gore is as real as it needs to be for the purposes of this film. And its made up for by Fulci's lingering camera which never misses a moment nor cuts away too quickly from any of the violence, producing a movie more unsettling and disturbing than most of today's sadistic magic shows. This movie really is something special. Grade A.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Taken
Seen for the first time in December 2012.
What a terrible movie. This movie that is called "Taken" is an unrelenting mix of corny garbage and cliched action movie tropes. Also, Liam Neeson's acting is completely underwhelming. The action is competent and these kind of glossy thrillers are always competently made, if without distinguish. Paint by numbers action films can be enjoyable, but when all of the characters are ciphers and always saying the dumbest thing possible in any given situation, it becomes too irritating to enjoy. Grade D.
What a terrible movie. This movie that is called "Taken" is an unrelenting mix of corny garbage and cliched action movie tropes. Also, Liam Neeson's acting is completely underwhelming. The action is competent and these kind of glossy thrillers are always competently made, if without distinguish. Paint by numbers action films can be enjoyable, but when all of the characters are ciphers and always saying the dumbest thing possible in any given situation, it becomes too irritating to enjoy. Grade D.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Devil's Island Lovers - Jess Franco
Seen for the first time in December 2012.
There are many different types of Jess Franco movies and equally many different ways to enjoy them, but these are not on display in "Devil's Island Lovers." Or at least the version that I just watched, which was not dubbed but subtitled in Spanish and possibly a clean version. This is basically a straight women-in-prison film, but completely without exploitation. So this is Jess Franco making a relatively mainstream movie in the '70s. Literally anyone else could have made this movie. What we want out of a Franco film is something that only Jess Franco could have made, in one of the many ways that that is possible.
There is no avant garde here. No surrealism. No proto-Lynchian nonsense. No amusing, halfhearted incompetence. No exploitation. No sensuality. Nothing strange about this at all. Just a boring drama in a corrupt place, with guilt but no justice. Maybe it could have been a good noir in different hands. Grade D.
There are many different types of Jess Franco movies and equally many different ways to enjoy them, but these are not on display in "Devil's Island Lovers." Or at least the version that I just watched, which was not dubbed but subtitled in Spanish and possibly a clean version. This is basically a straight women-in-prison film, but completely without exploitation. So this is Jess Franco making a relatively mainstream movie in the '70s. Literally anyone else could have made this movie. What we want out of a Franco film is something that only Jess Franco could have made, in one of the many ways that that is possible.
There is no avant garde here. No surrealism. No proto-Lynchian nonsense. No amusing, halfhearted incompetence. No exploitation. No sensuality. Nothing strange about this at all. Just a boring drama in a corrupt place, with guilt but no justice. Maybe it could have been a good noir in different hands. Grade D.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Wreck It Ralph
Seen in the theater for the first time in December 2012.
"Wreck It Ralph," is cute and heartwarming. It's entertaining enough, and is probably funny enough for a child who is not yet old enough to think about being cool. For an adult there are some smirky moments, and it doesn't lazily rely on references to old games as its sole source of appeal to an older audience. And the emotional manipulation is effective enough to make us tear up on a few occasions.
There's a nagging idea that all of the ideas in this game world aren't completely worked out, though. Like Felix's abilities to fix things seems independent of the person playing the game. Like what kind of game is that? It's like the person playing the game just watches him fix things, rather than maneuvering him. There doesn't ever seem to be a scenario where Felix fails to beat Ralph. Am I being silly? Yes, but... There's an obvious tension here with the fact that we have these programmed creations, and also third parties that manipulate them, and also they have some kind of free will as well. I'm not sure that at the end of the day this jumbled stew makes any sense.
But sure, it doesn't have to. Cause this is a nice diversion for children, and it's a nice diversion for adults too. Maybe Sarah Silverman's character seriously grates, but maybe she's also a pretty cool image for little girls to look at. And the movie has a nice little message about being nice to people, cause maybe a whole lot of problems would have been solved in this if these characters had just been nicer to each other. Maybe that's pabulum. It probably is. And maybe adults should be shooting for something higher than mild diversion. I'm starting to think so. I'm starting to think it's way too easy to settle for diversion, and our culture is suffering for it. And on the one hand, I know I'm just being a cranky old man and that cranky old men always have been and always will be full of shit. But on the other hand, I really am cranky and I really am starting to wonder... Grade B.
"Wreck It Ralph," is cute and heartwarming. It's entertaining enough, and is probably funny enough for a child who is not yet old enough to think about being cool. For an adult there are some smirky moments, and it doesn't lazily rely on references to old games as its sole source of appeal to an older audience. And the emotional manipulation is effective enough to make us tear up on a few occasions.
There's a nagging idea that all of the ideas in this game world aren't completely worked out, though. Like Felix's abilities to fix things seems independent of the person playing the game. Like what kind of game is that? It's like the person playing the game just watches him fix things, rather than maneuvering him. There doesn't ever seem to be a scenario where Felix fails to beat Ralph. Am I being silly? Yes, but... There's an obvious tension here with the fact that we have these programmed creations, and also third parties that manipulate them, and also they have some kind of free will as well. I'm not sure that at the end of the day this jumbled stew makes any sense.
But sure, it doesn't have to. Cause this is a nice diversion for children, and it's a nice diversion for adults too. Maybe Sarah Silverman's character seriously grates, but maybe she's also a pretty cool image for little girls to look at. And the movie has a nice little message about being nice to people, cause maybe a whole lot of problems would have been solved in this if these characters had just been nicer to each other. Maybe that's pabulum. It probably is. And maybe adults should be shooting for something higher than mild diversion. I'm starting to think so. I'm starting to think it's way too easy to settle for diversion, and our culture is suffering for it. And on the one hand, I know I'm just being a cranky old man and that cranky old men always have been and always will be full of shit. But on the other hand, I really am cranky and I really am starting to wonder... Grade B.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Klown
Seen for the first time in November 2012.
The humor in "Klown" is not so much witty, or well-timed, but cruel and mercilessly appalling. The male leads are, bluntly put, shitheads. They are ridiculous jackasses. They are two unredeemable cretins, who's lack of virtue, judgement and sense of responsibility is surpassed only by their complete idiocy, cast in a tale with a redemption arc.
On the one hand, we have the naive cretin, who's girlfriend is pregnant, but is considering an abortion because she doesn't believe he's capable of being a father. This guy is a like a Kafkaesque George Costanza, but somehow also a boring and timid bureaucrat. He, among other things, gives his mother-in-law a pearl necklace while she sleeps, flees his house during a burglary but leaves a sleeping child behind, and drags that same child along for a very adult canoe trip nicknamed the "tour de pussy."
On the other hand, we have the asshole cretin who presumes a couple of bottles of wine will allow him to have sex with high school girls, coins the term "tour de pussy" for this ridiculous canoe trip, and photographs that sleeping child's penis so that he'll "have something on him," in case the child talks about any of the shit that happens on this "tour de pussy" with his wife. Also he gets ass-fucked, possibly non-consensually.
Some of this works. Some of this doesn't. Clearly the movie is trying to one up itself in terms of playing shocking material for laughs. But its underwritten and more disquieting than funny. It's as if this movie was made by some psychologically troubled teen boys. There is no adult sensibility here. Grade B-.
The humor in "Klown" is not so much witty, or well-timed, but cruel and mercilessly appalling. The male leads are, bluntly put, shitheads. They are ridiculous jackasses. They are two unredeemable cretins, who's lack of virtue, judgement and sense of responsibility is surpassed only by their complete idiocy, cast in a tale with a redemption arc.
On the one hand, we have the naive cretin, who's girlfriend is pregnant, but is considering an abortion because she doesn't believe he's capable of being a father. This guy is a like a Kafkaesque George Costanza, but somehow also a boring and timid bureaucrat. He, among other things, gives his mother-in-law a pearl necklace while she sleeps, flees his house during a burglary but leaves a sleeping child behind, and drags that same child along for a very adult canoe trip nicknamed the "tour de pussy."
On the other hand, we have the asshole cretin who presumes a couple of bottles of wine will allow him to have sex with high school girls, coins the term "tour de pussy" for this ridiculous canoe trip, and photographs that sleeping child's penis so that he'll "have something on him," in case the child talks about any of the shit that happens on this "tour de pussy" with his wife. Also he gets ass-fucked, possibly non-consensually.
Some of this works. Some of this doesn't. Clearly the movie is trying to one up itself in terms of playing shocking material for laughs. But its underwritten and more disquieting than funny. It's as if this movie was made by some psychologically troubled teen boys. There is no adult sensibility here. Grade B-.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
C.H.U.D.
Seen for the second time in November 2012.
"C.H.U.D." was on cable television during the day time when I was a kid. I must've tried watching it a dozen times during the lazy days of summer vacation. It could never hold my attention though. In the intervening years it's become a sort of iconic cult classic. People bring up the movie, spit out the acronym and giggle. Truth is though, there's nothing particularly special about this movie.
Its merits are as follows: Daniel Stern, a ridiculous pandering explosion at the very end, John Goodman in a bit part, and what appears to me to be some actual serious effort by all involved. The problem is that it's boring. C.H.U.D. bores me in pretty much the exact same way that "Jaws" bores me. These movies have very different reputations, but I think there's some kind of structural similarity.
Frankly, also, I think C.H.U.D. may be too serious. It lacks the humor of the "Toxic Avenger" or the outright incompetence of "Troll II" or the charisma of the Evil Dead films. It could almost be played straight as a studio sci-fi horror release, but for a few amateur moments, like the confrontation between Bosch and the bad guy at the end. This isn't to its credit. I think it's better to be great camp than a poorly done and boring genre flick.
Ultimately it just feels like a bad idea that's been well executed, rather than a good idea that's been well but amateurishly executed (Or like "Troll II," a terrible but strange idea that's been incompetently but earnestly executed.) I do wonder why this is the only film under its director's belt. It doesn't seem poorly directed, and it made money. You would think he'd have the opportunity to keep working. I guess this is too good to be so bad it's good and not funny or thrilling enough to actually be a good movie. Grade B-.
"C.H.U.D." was on cable television during the day time when I was a kid. I must've tried watching it a dozen times during the lazy days of summer vacation. It could never hold my attention though. In the intervening years it's become a sort of iconic cult classic. People bring up the movie, spit out the acronym and giggle. Truth is though, there's nothing particularly special about this movie.
Its merits are as follows: Daniel Stern, a ridiculous pandering explosion at the very end, John Goodman in a bit part, and what appears to me to be some actual serious effort by all involved. The problem is that it's boring. C.H.U.D. bores me in pretty much the exact same way that "Jaws" bores me. These movies have very different reputations, but I think there's some kind of structural similarity.
Frankly, also, I think C.H.U.D. may be too serious. It lacks the humor of the "Toxic Avenger" or the outright incompetence of "Troll II" or the charisma of the Evil Dead films. It could almost be played straight as a studio sci-fi horror release, but for a few amateur moments, like the confrontation between Bosch and the bad guy at the end. This isn't to its credit. I think it's better to be great camp than a poorly done and boring genre flick.
Ultimately it just feels like a bad idea that's been well executed, rather than a good idea that's been well but amateurishly executed (Or like "Troll II," a terrible but strange idea that's been incompetently but earnestly executed.) I do wonder why this is the only film under its director's belt. It doesn't seem poorly directed, and it made money. You would think he'd have the opportunity to keep working. I guess this is too good to be so bad it's good and not funny or thrilling enough to actually be a good movie. Grade B-.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Silver Linings Playbook
Seen in the theater for the first time in November 2012.
At its core, "Silver Linings Playbook" is kind of a shitty romantic comedy. It nonetheless has some very funny jokes. You can kind of picture Adam Sandler playing the lead role, and the film this is most reminiscent of is "Punch Drunk Love," though not as good. It's entertaining as you watch it and the manipulation is effective even if you get tired of Jennifer Lawrence giving lectures on her emotions. Her performance is still good and I love her though. But still your brain knows that deep down this is not a good movie. The phrase to describe it is pandering sentimentality of the worst kind.
It reminds me of the distaste I get when I think of a film like "Little Miss Sunshine" or "Black Snake Moan." What these films have in common in my opinion is the impression that they started as a very good idea, and then got focus grouped into a kind of mawkish nausea. One senses their was once vision here, and that was diluted into some kind of lowest common denominator blandness. Still, it's easy enough to simply enjoy a movie like this for its charms which are inoffensive enough, but it never quite vanquishes the nagging empty feeling that despite the kooky crazy antics of the two mains and a tired Robert De Niro, this is a mass produced cliche of bland diversion in the romantic-comedy form. We hunger for it to subvert that form, but it never does. Grade C +.
At its core, "Silver Linings Playbook" is kind of a shitty romantic comedy. It nonetheless has some very funny jokes. You can kind of picture Adam Sandler playing the lead role, and the film this is most reminiscent of is "Punch Drunk Love," though not as good. It's entertaining as you watch it and the manipulation is effective even if you get tired of Jennifer Lawrence giving lectures on her emotions. Her performance is still good and I love her though. But still your brain knows that deep down this is not a good movie. The phrase to describe it is pandering sentimentality of the worst kind.
It reminds me of the distaste I get when I think of a film like "Little Miss Sunshine" or "Black Snake Moan." What these films have in common in my opinion is the impression that they started as a very good idea, and then got focus grouped into a kind of mawkish nausea. One senses their was once vision here, and that was diluted into some kind of lowest common denominator blandness. Still, it's easy enough to simply enjoy a movie like this for its charms which are inoffensive enough, but it never quite vanquishes the nagging empty feeling that despite the kooky crazy antics of the two mains and a tired Robert De Niro, this is a mass produced cliche of bland diversion in the romantic-comedy form. We hunger for it to subvert that form, but it never does. Grade C +.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Slave Girls From Beyond Infinity
Seen for the first time in November 2012.
“Slave Girls From Beyond Infinity” is exactly the movie one expects from its title and the year of its production (1987). It’s good enough but skip-able as silly, deliberately campy sci-fi, if kind of lazy in execution. It’s also a pretext for depicting scantily clad women. In this aspect, it excels. Grade B.
“Slave Girls From Beyond Infinity” is exactly the movie one expects from its title and the year of its production (1987). It’s good enough but skip-able as silly, deliberately campy sci-fi, if kind of lazy in execution. It’s also a pretext for depicting scantily clad women. In this aspect, it excels. Grade B.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
The Awful Dr Orlof - Jess Franco
Seen for the first time in November 2012.
“The Awful Dr. Orlof” is early Jess Franco, when he was making are by today’s standards respectable b movies, and before he became one of the pioneers of euro-sleaze or developed a reputation as an effort-free hack in some circles and an surrealist, experimental film-maker in others. This is a traditional, old-school, b-movie horror, competently done. It’s kind of boring by today’s standards, assuming one doesn’t have an enthusiasm for 50’s black and white horror. Franco’s later, “The Diabolical Dr. Z” is better, and is evidence for the idea that Franco is a talented director. This is merely evidence that Franco is a capable director who could do more mainstream fare if given the opportunity and inclination. Grade B-.
“The Awful Dr. Orlof” is early Jess Franco, when he was making are by today’s standards respectable b movies, and before he became one of the pioneers of euro-sleaze or developed a reputation as an effort-free hack in some circles and an surrealist, experimental film-maker in others. This is a traditional, old-school, b-movie horror, competently done. It’s kind of boring by today’s standards, assuming one doesn’t have an enthusiasm for 50’s black and white horror. Franco’s later, “The Diabolical Dr. Z” is better, and is evidence for the idea that Franco is a talented director. This is merely evidence that Franco is a capable director who could do more mainstream fare if given the opportunity and inclination. Grade B-.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
The Dictator - Sacha Baron-Cohen
Seen for the first time in November 2012.
I think I liked “The Dictator” more than the consensus of initial reactions. I thought there were many funny moments, despite a good bit of admittedly lazy humor. It was better than “Bruno,” which was more annoying than funny. But I didn’t laugh as much as I laughed at “Borat.” Though I wonder if I would still laugh at “Borat” if I saw it today.
Either way, “Borat” was something uniquely funny upon arrival, not just funnier than most other comedies, but so seemingly different as well that its difficult to rank as a comedy and not just as a funny aberrant form that exists outside of the comedy movie paradigm. Like if I ranked the top 5 movies of the first decade of the twenty first century, I’d tentatively include in some order that I have not determined: “Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle,” “Zoolander,” “Super Troopers,” “Wet Hot American Summer,” “Observe and Report,” or maybe if I could only include half of a movie, I’d find a way to fit in the first third of “Superbad.” “Borat” is as consistently and thoroughly funny as many of these movies, but somehow it is just so different an entity from these movies it would never occur to me to think of it when drawing up that list.
“The Dictator” is a more traditional comedy. And on that score, it succeeds with plenty of laughs. It is, for example, much better than “Don’t Mess With the Zohan,” to which one might draw comparisons. “The Dictator” is unsurprisingly politically lazy and, though I love Anna Faris maybe more than any woman alive, a lot of the humor surrounding her character is hackishly lazy. And yet the repeated jokes of the “are you having a boy or an abortion” vein drew laughs from me. Grade B+.
I think I liked “The Dictator” more than the consensus of initial reactions. I thought there were many funny moments, despite a good bit of admittedly lazy humor. It was better than “Bruno,” which was more annoying than funny. But I didn’t laugh as much as I laughed at “Borat.” Though I wonder if I would still laugh at “Borat” if I saw it today.
Either way, “Borat” was something uniquely funny upon arrival, not just funnier than most other comedies, but so seemingly different as well that its difficult to rank as a comedy and not just as a funny aberrant form that exists outside of the comedy movie paradigm. Like if I ranked the top 5 movies of the first decade of the twenty first century, I’d tentatively include in some order that I have not determined: “Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle,” “Zoolander,” “Super Troopers,” “Wet Hot American Summer,” “Observe and Report,” or maybe if I could only include half of a movie, I’d find a way to fit in the first third of “Superbad.” “Borat” is as consistently and thoroughly funny as many of these movies, but somehow it is just so different an entity from these movies it would never occur to me to think of it when drawing up that list.
“The Dictator” is a more traditional comedy. And on that score, it succeeds with plenty of laughs. It is, for example, much better than “Don’t Mess With the Zohan,” to which one might draw comparisons. “The Dictator” is unsurprisingly politically lazy and, though I love Anna Faris maybe more than any woman alive, a lot of the humor surrounding her character is hackishly lazy. And yet the repeated jokes of the “are you having a boy or an abortion” vein drew laughs from me. Grade B+.
Monday, November 19, 2012
The Cat O'Nine Tails - Dario Argento
Seen for the first time in November 2012.
Between this and “Suspiria,” I don’t really understand Dario Argento’s outsized reputation. I liked this a lot better than I liked “Suspiria.” This is legitimately riveting and suspenseful. But still, it doesn’t stand out amongst the works of Mario Bava, Lucio Fulci, or Umberto Lenzi in the world of giallo. To its credit, when the mystery is solved, the plot is a bit convoluted but it isn’t the Rube Goldberg machine similar films often end up seeming plotwise. This is a better than average thriller, but I feel like Argento needs to be either grimmer, grimier, or sleazier or else he’s just second-rate Italian Hitchcock. By which I mean, one either needs to be as good as Hitchcock or they need to compensate somehow, cause this is a nice film and all, but it’s no “Vertigo.” Grade B+.
Between this and “Suspiria,” I don’t really understand Dario Argento’s outsized reputation. I liked this a lot better than I liked “Suspiria.” This is legitimately riveting and suspenseful. But still, it doesn’t stand out amongst the works of Mario Bava, Lucio Fulci, or Umberto Lenzi in the world of giallo. To its credit, when the mystery is solved, the plot is a bit convoluted but it isn’t the Rube Goldberg machine similar films often end up seeming plotwise. This is a better than average thriller, but I feel like Argento needs to be either grimmer, grimier, or sleazier or else he’s just second-rate Italian Hitchcock. By which I mean, one either needs to be as good as Hitchcock or they need to compensate somehow, cause this is a nice film and all, but it’s no “Vertigo.” Grade B+.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)